Talk:Tatars/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Current Edit War

  • I would like all parties involved to please discussion the current issue of "Turkic" and "Turkic Speaking" here, as it will avoid a headache for us all. Thank you. The Scythian 19:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Can I repeat this warning. There seems to be daily reverting and re-reverting with absolutely no discussion taking place. Admins will have to be called in to take action soon.--Kotniski (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Need's Editing!

- -

  • I have been trying for WEEKS to properly edit this article, and as soon as I make some Positive changes to Improve it, someone's always re-reverting it. I think Turkic-Speaking Should definitely be changed to Turkic People, as all the other Turkic Groups have this! What's anyone Else's Opinion on this Subject??

- 82.12.119.95 (Talk)...8.35pm, Tuesday, November 25th (UTC+5)


Turkic vs. Turkic-speaking

I'm unclear why this is considered an issue worth edit-warring over, but I do know that the cited source uses the term "Turkic-speaking". Altering the text without citing a different source is falsifying the citation and amounts to vandalism. Can you explain? Kafka Liz (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


Reply

I do Agree that without a Source then changing the Article makes it Vandalism. However, it's not currently possible to get Improved sources, so making the Article similar to other ethnic Group Articles surely improves it. 82.12.119.95 (Talk)...6.12pm, Wednesday, November 26th (UTC+5)

Tatars are a Turkic people

From Wikipedia's article on Turkic people:

"The Turkic peoples are Eurasian peoples residing in northern, central and western Eurasia who speak languages belonging to the Turkic language family. They share, to varying degrees, certain cultural traits and historical backgrounds. The term Turkic represents a broad ethno-linguistic group of people including existing societies such as the Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Kyrgyz, Tatar, Uyghur, Azerbaijani, Turkmen and Turkish people, as well as past civilizations such as the Xiongnu, Cumans, Avars, Bulgars, Huns, Seljuks, Khazars, Ottomans and Timurids."

As everyone can clearly see Tatars are a Turkic people ethno-linguistically. Saying it so doesn't make one a pan-Turkist or a Turanist. This is a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fnr Kllrb (talk • contribs) 07:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

  • We can't necessarily take statements from other Wikipedia articles as reliable facts. In this case, the list seems to be just a list of peoples whose languages are Turkic; no evidence is offered that Tatars have any affiliation with other "Turkic" peoples other than language. This being the case, it seems least misleading - and certainly not wrong - to write "Turkic-speaking". Is there any factual basis for omitting the "speaking" - i.e. for implying that the Tatars are Turkic in some sense other than a linguistic one?--Kotniski (talk) 09:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. I don't think there is anything wrong with a statement like "Tatars are a Turkic-speaking people", but it somehow implies that Tatars are a non-Turkic people who happen to speak a Turkic language. That's not the case. You can also read Tatar history in this very article as a proof of common origin with other Turkic people at some point.

By the way, I didn't use Wikipedia as a reference here, I merely pointed out the fact that Wikipedia has two separate articles on Turkic languages and Turkic people. My point is that Turkic is an ethno-linguistic concept, not just linguistic.

Please restore my rightful edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fnr Kllrb (talk • contribs) 14:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to remove a reliably sourced statement without both achieving consensus on the talk page and finding a more reliable source to back such a change. I personally don't see the need for a change here, so the burden is on you and other editors who feel similarly. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

So the only thing I have to do is finding a source that mentions Tatars as a Turkic people, right? Fine.

There you go: http://virtual.finland.fi/netcomm/news/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=26477 or http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Tatars

By the way, why are acting like a robot, repeating Wikipedia's codewords and such? I am starting to suspect that you aren't even a real person. The particular referenced information is not incorrect, but irrelevant and misleading:

Tatars are a Turkic-speaking people, linguistically.

Tatars are a Turkic people, ethno-linguistically.

Do you understand me?

  • I don't find either of those sources very reliable or convincing (and the second seems not even to mention the word Turkic). Maybe you could explain what you think might be meant by "ethno-linguistically" in this context (I mean the actual facts behind the statement) and provide some evidence for that?--Kotniski (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
You actually need evidence[1] the Tatars[2] speak a Turkic[3] language[4]? I mean, that is kind of basic, don't you think? I mean, for an editor of this article to know, right? The Scythian 19:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood him. He asks what Tatars share with other Turkic people other than language. Obviously the answer is Wikipedia has two different articles on Turkic languages and Turkic people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fnr Kllrb (talk • contribs) 05:32, 30 November 2008
That isn't really a convincing argument. Maybe it shouldn't have; or maybe Tatars shouldn't be included in the Turkic people article anyway (at least, not for any reason other than language).--Kotniski (talk) 09:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Uh...I hate to break it to you, but its their LANGUAGE that makes them Turkic. The Scythian 09:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It makes no difference to me which version of the lead sentence is decided on: my initial - and primary - concern was that the referenced source be cited correctly. My second thought was that citing a source was preferable in this instance, since the edit-wars over this particular phrase have been going on for some time. Scythian, no one here doubts the fact that Tatars speak a Turkic language; the debate was over the perceived difference between "Turkic-speaking" (which emphasises a quantifiable group attribute) and "Turkic"; the difference between these phrases seems to me obscure to the point of absurdity, barring a certain fixation on ethnos that seems to be to be rooted in National mysticism. I note, incidentally, that Fnr Kllrb has failed responded to Kotniski's request for a fuller explanation of his use of the term "ethno-linguistically". On a final note, there is no need for such a hostile tone from either of you. I was only trying to help. You might both wish to review Wikipedia's guideline on assuming good faith and the policy on personal attacks. Happy editing, Kafka Liz (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, before again removing this reference and substituting an unsourced statement of your own, at least explain where you're coming from with it. --Kotniski (talk) 09:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Tatars are a Turkic speaking people but not Turkic people genetically. An example? go look the Khazaks, kyrkyz people or the Mongoloids, that is what a Turkic people should looks like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.117.230.34 (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

@123.117.230.34, such an ignorant comment. how do you understand a people is turk or not turk from their faces? how do you understand this reality from dna? tatars are 100% turkish people. tatarstan belongs to Turkish world. its under the russian invasion for long years.

Just read the discussion and I want to express my support to the user Kotniski. It would not be academically correct to state that the entire Tatar ethnicity is Turkic. The ethnogenesis of Tatars is extremely sophisticated and disputed. Turkic component is certainly present. Still, modern Tatars descended from the people of the Volga Bulgaria, Bulgars. The republic of Tatarstan is situated roughly in the same land there Volga Bulgaria was. I would say that apart from the language, there is little evidence of firm ties between Tatars and Turkic peoples. Therefore, I would abstain from the Turkic label here. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Tatars (Tatar name is a russian calling) are Turkish people. Tatarstan is a part of Turkish world. They are Turkish, they are talking in Turkish language. You are calling them as bulgar,tatar or russian because you are russian and making a propaganda. These lands are under the invasion of russia for long years.. Tatarstan,Yakutia,Tuva,Altai,Nogay etc. they are Turkish. Their native languages are Turkish. please stop deny these realities and give them their freedoms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.177.21.35 (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

@78.177.21.35. First of all it seems that you havent read much on this or havent done much research. If you did do research then you would feem embarrassed by what you said. obviously you are also not aware that many, many Tatars do not accept being called Tatars and prefer to be called Bulgars. There are two theories - that the Tatars are mixed between Bulgars, Mongols and Cumans and Kipchaks or that they are pure Bulgars who never mixed. Many of them dont have asiatic features (Im talking about the Volga/Kazan Tatars, so the Mongol component seems very unlikely. Second of all - there is no propaganda here - what on earth are you on about? Just because someone's language is Turkish does not necessarily mean they are ethnically Turkish - take the Iranians for example - they use the Arabic script but they are not Arabs. Even the language of the Bulgars is disputed - some researchers say that it could have been an Iranic language with lots of Turkic loanwords. Nothing is proven. So far, as much as Im aware, there has been a DNA test on the Iranic people and modern Bulgarians and there seems to be a strong link - that is the closest clue we have to the ethnicity of the Volga Tatars - no testing has ever shown a link between Volga Tatars and Turkic people, so the Bulgarian DNA testing is the strongest clue we have. The Volga Tatars' appearance - the most obvious evidence, does not look Turkic - there are blonds and many green eyes - that doesnt really happen in Turkic people. Nevertheless, Volga Tatars might just then be mixed with Turkic peoples, but they most definately aren't entirely Turkic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 10:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Current version

I think the current version of the lede is sufficiently clear, neutral, and representative of what the sources say. To avoid more edit warring, please state any objections to it here before making substantial changes to the text (which you know are gonig to be reverted anyway).--Kotniski (talk) 09:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I object. The Scythian 09:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
But why?--Kotniski (talk) 09:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The purpose is certainly not to say that they are no Turkic speaking, as you implied in your edit summary - it clearly states that they (or many of them - we would need statistics to say how many) speak Tatar which is a Turkic language.--Kotniski (talk) 09:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Ultimately, you are getting into the very definition of what "Turkic" means. It is not just the historical language, but history, origins, culture, etc. In fact, it was not too long ago that vertically all Turkic/Mongol/Central Asian groups in the Russian Empire/Soviet Union were labeled as "Tatars". By stating that the Tatars are a collection of ethnic groups...What does that mean? What ethnic groups, and how are they related? What is trying to be said here? This must be expanded upon. By removing the word "Turkic" from the intro paragraph, a rational must be presented that explains such an action. I so for see nothing of the sort so far. The Scythian 09:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand - the word Turkic hasn't been removed. The question of the number of and relationships between the various ethnic groups is discussed elsewhere in the article (necessarily at great length, since it is clearly a very complex issue).--Kotniski (talk) 10:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Since both terms are present and referenced, Kotniski's version seems like a good compromise version. What reasonable objection is there? Kafka Liz (talk) 11:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Tatars in Turkey

4.5 million Tatars live in Turkey as Eskişehir, Balıkesir, Bursa, Ankara city. They came here 18. century. Please add Turkey the list and page. Anda Tatars are a Turkic nation.--193.140.180.223 (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

I am trying to avoid an edit war with an anonymous IP user user:195.210.193.117, so I'll bring the discussion here. In a nutshell - I think that there's no point, in the space for six pictures of notable Tartars, of having a brother and sister (with the same profession) both featured separately as Tatars (Marat Safin and Dinara Safina), as I think our readership can make the connection if they know who either of them is. (Ideally if there's an available picture of them together we should use that.) Instead, it seems obvious someone from a different field (and family) is more appropriate - I have gone with the choice of a previous editor, which was the singer Alsou. I have explained this on the talk page of the IP user, but they don't talk back and just revert, behaving rather like they WP:OWN the page. Any views on which combination of pictures is best?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I've put it back again after a named user made the same change. Does anyone else want to express a view? It seems that most editors are in favour of having Alsou in place of one of the Safins, but that's just judging by edit patterns.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I am starting to believe that user:XStandartX is a sockpuppet of the IP users 195.210.193.146, 195.210.193.62 and other 195.210.193.xxx users. Same edits, same refusal to discuss on the talk page or on their own talk page, same reverting pattern, same SPA editing pattern. This is a warning to stop editing disruptively without communicating and come here and attempt to persuade other editors of your actions. Otherwise I'll report you.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I just kicked out a foot-ballplayer from the picture, Rinat Akhmetov is more significant then a Everton F.C.-player. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 18:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I am cutting out some of the football players in the list. Apparently the anonymous who put them is a big fan of the game, yet I think we have over representation here :) Let me know if you disagree and tell us why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papersteamboat (talk • contribs) 02:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, it was me who put whose pictures into the article. Tatars continue to be enigmatic for most people and wikipedia page often serves as the first point of knowledge. I thought that more pictures of tatar faces may improve the recognizability and awareness about this ethnicity. There are quite a few famous tatars - looking at their faces people can understand how they really look like. However, I do agree that there might be some skewness to football players. Still, I would like to see more pictures of tatars on this page. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Polish surname endings

With all the respect, the typical Polish ending of the surname is "-ski" (male) and "-ska" (female). The "wicz" (vich) is not typically Polish (as very similar to the Russian "otchestvto/otczestwo"), but typical to the Polish Tatars, who have usually inhabited eastern borders of the Commonwealth, where most of the Rus (Rusini) - have lived and got polonized. Best wishes, M.A.Aleksandrowicz, a Pole of Tatar ancestors;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.130.78 (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

I have reverted recent edits by User:Почта000 and User:Изображение; my concern with the contributions of the former is that they remove mention of Karaim Tatars from the infobox for no clear reason; such a change hardly advanced clarity. The delinking of terms in the "Tatar" etymology also does not improve clarity-- it made the prose less clear and reduced useful, informative links.

The contributions of Изображение are interesting, but bare links to related images don't help much-- a link to an entire site might be added to the External links section, or -- best of all -- any images with appropriate licensing could be added to Commons and added to the article body proper. Avram (talk) 03:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the most recent removal of the Caucasian Tatars section and the mention of Karaim Tatars from the infobox; are there concrete reasons why this content shouldn't be in the article? It isn't always the best prose, but it's apparently factual and useful information. Similarly, the wikilinking of key concepts like languages is fairly standard on Wikipedia, so I'm interested in what might be problematic with its application on this page. Please discuss your reasoning if you disagree. Avram (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

This article does not differentiate between the name "Tatar" or its etymology and the Turkic-speaking people now known as "Tatars". The original "Tatars" were a Mongolian nomadic tribe (see Encyclopaedia of Islam. Their name was later extended to other nomadic invaders from the Central Asian steppes and became a generic lable for Turko-Mongols. The modern Tatar people are not identical with the historical (original) Tatars of Mongolia, the same way modern Arabic-speaking "Egyptians" are not identical with the Egyptians of antiquity. They only share the same name. Tajik (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a small note: the Encyclopaedia of Islam (Peter B. Golden) writes: TATAR, the name of a Mongolic tribal grouping. Their earliest attestation is in the 8th century Orkhon Türk inscriptions in which the Otuz Tatar (“Thirty T.”) are noted (KT, e14, s1) together with other Proto-Mongolian peoples (the Khitan, Tatab) as rebellious subjects of the Türk Empire. Elsewhere (B| e35), the Toquz Tatar (“Nine T.”) are reported as allies of the Oghuz who were defeated by Bilge Khaqan (...) and in the late 740s by the Uyghurs. Tajik (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the modern Tartar people are the same ones Ghengis Khan drove into Russia, later under the name Golden Horde. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

What are you serious - ARE YOU CRAZY!!!! How can they be the same - what about the Volga and Kazan Tatars who are mostly descende from the Bulgars - whose origin by the way is strongly disputed, but it looks like they were Iranic and not Turkic, so that means then that the Volga and Kazan Tatars are neither Mongolian - as you basically claim, nor are they really Turkic. For genetic evidence/proof that the Bulgars were not Turkic read this: http://thearchaeologicalbox.com/en/news/dna-analysis-reveals-pamir-origin-bulgarians AND http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=117006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Original Research

None of the "sources" listed,

  • http://sitemaker.umich.edu/mladjov/files/bulgarian_rulers.pdf
  • http://samoistina.at.ua/2/similarities.htm |title=Ethnological traits of the ancient Iranian culture in modern-day Bulgarian culture |publisher=Samoistina.at.ua |date= |accessdate=2011-03-07}}
  • http://m3web.bg |url=http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=117192the |title=Bulgarian Expedition Travels to Iran in Search of Roots: Bulgarian Expedition Travels to Iran in Search of Roots - Novinite.com - Sofia News Agency |publisher=Novinite.com |date=2010-06-16 |accessdate=2011-03-07}}
  • http://thearchaeologicalbox.com/en/news/dna-analysis-reveals-pamir-origin-bulgarians |title=DNA Analysis Reveals Pamir Origin of Bulgarians |publisher=TheArchaeologicalBox.com |date=2010-06-12 |accessdate=2011-03-07}}
  • http://sofiamorningnews.net/ |title=(published by Sofia News Agency, novinite.com) |publisher=Sofia Morning News |date= |accessdate=2011-03-07}}
  • http://groznijat.tripod.com/b_lang/bl_a_v.html |title=Old Bulgar words - A-V |publisher=Groznijat.tripod.com |date= |accessdate=2011-03-07}}
  • http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3236.htm |title=Bulgaria |publisher=State.gov |date=2010-09-20 |accessdate=2011-03-07}}
  • Brockhaus Conversations-Lexikon Bd. 7. Amsterdam 1809, S. 161-162
  • Pierer's Universal-Lexikon, Band 2. Altenburg 1857, S. 230
  • Dobrev, Petar. Unknown Ancient Bulgaria. Sofia: Ivan Vazov Publishers, 2001. 158 pp. (in Bulgarian) ISBN 9546041211

state anything about Volga Tatars and therefore is original research and has been tagged. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you slow? I have wasted so much energy in explaining, many times that it doesnt need to mention the Volga Tatars, since Volga Tatars are descended from Bulgars, so if they talk about the nation where the Tatars are mostly descended from, then it automatically talks about the Tatars origins too, since they are descended from Bulgars - it seems like you are trying not to understand, because this is impossible not to understand —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The Tatar people are most certainly NOT descended from the Bulgar tribes - I don't know what crazy nationalistic history books you've been reading, but you need to find some respected (aka throughout academia) reference books on the subject. HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC) HammerfilmFan

Nobody said that but what was said is that the Volga - Kazan Tatars are descended from the Bulgars, since that is where the Bulgars lived and even those Tatars testify to their Bulgar descent.

Religion

Any idea about how many of the Tatars are Muslim and how many are Christian? In Russia off course the religion data is banned from the Census. But can it be extrapolated from the Kazakh and Baltic census data? In Kazakhstan, 79.57% of the Tatars were Muslim according to the 2009 Census, followed by Christians and Non-religious. In Lithuania, 51.9% of the Tatars were Muslims, followed by Non-religious at 27.98%. In Estonia, the majority was non-religious, while 32.4% were Muslim. Axxn (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The article

I got a feeling that the whole article needs to be rewritten with reliable sources. Otherwise, there is a lot of confusion here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.242.250 (talk • contribs) 9 July 2011

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tatars/Archive_2&oldid=1131531432"